Wait, I've clearly gotten turned around somewhere, do all three bikes actually have names or is it Arcee and Chromia with unknown rather than Arcee and Elita One with unknown? I seem to have gotten confused by the way some peeps have been bandying Elita 1's name about. If the middle bike is unnamed then I guess IDW don't have to worry about killing the original grunt Elita 1 toy then. horay!

EDIT: Obviously named on the toy pacakging, I'm aware thefilm's only mentions Arcee and is vague on if it regards all three of them as her. Like a Duocon but one better. A Triocon I call her, and I want one now.

Only two of the bikes currently have names—Arcee (the reddish pink bike) and Chromia (the blue bike) the purple bike has yet to be named.

Now that makes sense, syncing up the colour with the name would probably take a little more thought, about ten minuets ("Can you make this one blue? I like blue the same way I like my purple Skywarp. Behold Chromia!"). I've no idea how this thread wound up as a Elita 1 discussion then, especially spinning off from a thread about a movie toyline she isn't in. The wrong end of the stick has well and truely been grabbed (well, at least by me. I'm sure at least two and a half other people in the thread probably know what they're talking about). I'm going to have to reread the whole thing...

Now that makes sense, syncing up the colour with the name would probably take a little more thought, about ten minuets ("Can you make this one blue? I like blue the same way I like my purple Skywarp. Behold Chromia!"). I've no idea how this thread wound up as a Elita 1 discussion then, especially spinning off from a thread about a movie toyline she isn't in. The wrong end of the stick has well and truely been grabbed (well, at least by me. I'm sure at least two and a half other people in the thread probably know what they're talking about). I'm going to have to reread the whole thing...

It all started because of speculation that the third sister should be named Elita-1.

It all started because of speculation that the third sister should be named Elita-1.

Which, frankly, would be impossible. Elita-One is dead, killed by Starscream in Reign of Starscream.

Besides, the novelization made mention that Arcee is a tri-partine Autobot, a mind shared between three bodies. Kinda like Reflector or the Duocons, I think. Actually, the only reference pointing to the Arcee bikes being separate characters is Chromia's toy bio. And we know how reliable toy bios can be...

Which, frankly, would be impossible. Elita-One is dead, killed by Starscream in Reign of Starscream.

Besides, the novelization made mention that Arcee is a tri-partine Autobot, a mind shared between three bodies. Kinda like Reflector or the Duocons, I think. Actually, the only reference pointing to the Arcee bikes being separate characters is Chromia's toy bio. And we know how reliable toy bios can be...

The idea that Arcee would be one being in three bodies was pretty much dropped, neither the movie not comic adaption establish that. Nor do the sisters act like a single being. They act as a team, so I would say that the toy bios are indeed accurate. They're not a single entity. IF they were, what affected one would affect them all, and this was clearly not the case in the movie or comic.

There is a difference here verses those particular toys. Those toys were special "toy only" alternate paint jobs" not how the characters were portrayed within the fiction. They were strictly toy only designs of those characters. HEre we are talking about a character who was in the actual fiction, *as she appeared in the actual fiction*. And in those cases, the toy bis were accurate, and actually added to the information about the character beyond what the screen showed. Besides, the key that started this discussion was trying to name the third sister based upon the toy, and trying to figure out what Hasbro might name her. Therefore, the toy bios are very relevant here.

I think I understand the issue a little more. Tramp, you are confusing archetypes with the naming scheme. The method used for naming characters falls to the marketing and design department. Hasbro has a myriad of Transformer characters, each able to be called upon and used as necessary.

Here is an example of a persistent character archetype. The young and eager Autobot/Maximal who wants to do well, but inexperience often causes some problem. Often this character is Optimus' protege or Optimus acts as a mentor to the character.

Couple of examples that come to mind: Beast Wars-Cheetor. Often willing to jump in before thinking and ready to fight. Post-Beast Wars-Hot Shot, same scenario. TF Animated-Bumblebee.

Characters with the same name have had different archetypes. Using Bumblebee as an example, in the G1 cartoon, BB was espionage. He would scout and was not very powerful, but elusive and human friendly. He was likable and non-threatening, appealing to more passive individuals. He transforms into Goldbug and gets a little tougher. Then he is resurrected in TF Animated and is a young and inexperienced bot always ready to fight and gets into trouble. Even still, he is human friendly, likable and non-threatening.

Then you have the new movies. Bumblebee is a killing machine and is Sam Witwicky's bodyguard. He defends Sam, killing Decepticons and even snatching up the twins and bashing their heads together at one point. Same character name, but different character archetype.

Naming Transformers has more to do with branding and property rights protection than it has to do with a pre-associated archetype with a given character name. Yes, names like Optimus Prime and Megatron are associated with leadership and signify leadership as the Transformers brand. The only reason is brand association. We, as fans, expect Optimus Prime to be the leader of the Autobots and Megatron the leader of the Decepticons.

Hasbro designed and has carefully protected the Transformer brand. The canon and dogma of the Transformers Universe can and will change based on the demand for the brand and not fan's expectations.

Take Beast Wars as an example. Optimus Prime was recreated as Optimus Primal. Previously, in Machine Wars, he was still Optimus Prime, but Hasbro decided to take the Transformers brand in a new direction. The toys used to say Beast Wars Tranformers and as the Beast Wars brand became popular, the brand changed to read Transformers Beast Wars. Optimus Primal was recreated several times and with the transition from Beast Wars to Beast Machines, but he remained Optimus Primal. When RID came out, we had Optimus Prime back, but in fire truck form. The Transformers series evolved, changed, recycled ideas and now we have Optimus Prime as a semi again.

On a final thought, you have some interesting ideas. I like a good discussion with anyone. To me, discussions are the best method of communication. In a discussion, people should give and receive respect for exchanging thoughts and ideas, even when there is a disagreement. I respect your rights and appreciate your input as well.

**As an aside** I usually never respond quoting someone's entire reply simply because I do not want to waste storage space or bandwidth. If I am replying to someone specifically, I try to use the name, or if I am replying to a particular statement of someone's post, then I limit the box to just the statement I want to reply to.

I'm not confusing anything. I know the differences. The thing is though, that in Transformers, the name often has much to do with who the character is as a character as an archetype, not just as a "marketing and design" angle. That's very much how Bob Budyanski worked it, and it's how most comic artists and writers work it. They start with an archetype and build the character and names around it, or they start with a name and fit an archetype to it. Archetypes and naming schemes are very much interrelated.

In the case of Bumblebee, the G1 version, Animated version, and movie version are all very similar is several key respects—they're yellow and black (obviously, which is where they get their name), they're young and eager to prove themselves, They're each the best friend of the respective main human character, so they're actually very much the same basic archetype. That being the young "teenager". The differences are that G1 Bumblebee is a spy, Animated Bumblebee is a speedster and chatterbox, and movie Bumblebee is a better fighter who is partially mute. He is still the scout, just like in G1, however. Movie Bumblebee was based very much on G1 Bumblebee. The essences of the G1 character is still intact in the movie character. He's still the likable youngster people can relate with. He's still kid-friendly. Ultimately their basic character archetype is very much the same. He's the young, eager over-achiever, and best friend. That's Bumblebee in every incarnation. The differences are relatively minor.

In the case of Optimus Primal, he was created to fill the same exact archetype as Optimus Prime. His archetype determined his name and vice versa. The same is true of BW Megatron,

Elita-1 is the same way. Her archetype determines her name and her name determines her archetype. They're very, very interrelated. And, from a marketing stand point, that has to be taken into account. Does the name fit the character? Does the character fit the name? If the answer to either of these questions is "no" then don't use that name for that character. Don't use that character for that name.

Hang on a sec, the novelization counts when it says things that contradict the film (how may Prime's there were, the Fallen being in a sarcophagus) but when it says something that isn't contradicted anywhere else (the film in impercise on the nature of Arcee as is the comic adaptation) it suddenly doesn't count? Either I'm really getting a massive amount wrong today or those goal posts are moving again.

Hang on a sec, the novelization counts when it says things that contradict the film (how may Prime's there were, the Fallen being in a sarcophagus) but when it says something that isn't contradicted anywhere else (the film in impercise on the nature of Arcee as is the comic adaptation) it suddenly doesn't count? Either I'm really getting a massive amount wrong today or those goal posts are moving again.

Yeh, I think so. I tried to let this one run a bit so the forum didn't look like Garand had made a return, but it's the usual head against brick wall effect, isn't it? Clay's last post sums everything up nicely.

RE Tramp; obsessiveness to the point of trolling gets old. The posted rules, in brief, simply say to not be a twat and you'll get by fine around here. After some discussion with the other admins, we think Tramp has proven to be far more of a hindrance to discussion than an aid, ad nauseum. This didn't come from this thread alone, but basically every discussion he's brickwalled into a 100+ reply behemoth of little more than, "nuh-uh" / "YUH-huh."

He'll be back, eventually, at which point he'll hopefully have learned to at least acknowledge that other people can interpret things differently and still be right.

I'll move this and some other relevant threads to the Junkion files in a few weeks. They should be all the explanation anyone really needs.